Bluegrassrivals

Not just the rich but corporations also.

I used to be against this, but after looking more into the subject I have drastically changed my mind. Now before some of you get into flame mode I ask you to read and truly think about the things I am going to type here.

I ask first, a simple question what 2 times in our history have taxes on the top 1-3% of American been the highest?

The Answer, is during the 50's during the "Golden Years", and during the 90's economic boom when we were the strongest economy to ever exist on this planet.

Now when were the 2 times taxes were the lowest on the top 1-3% of Americans?

The answer, before the great depression, and in 2008 before the great recession.

So, we see that during our greatest economic times taxes were higher on the richest, and during our worst times they were lower on the richest.

Now you ask why is this? If the rich and corporations have more money they will spread it around. Well that is just totally not true. In fact, the lower taxes mean they have more money with which to speculate on the market with, which has caused both of our 2 worst economic crisis'.

See, if taxes our higher, that is when they will reinvest that money back into business and jobs, because it will not be worth the tax hit to take it out for profit.

Beetle01 Wrote:Not just the rich but corporations also.

I used to be against this, but after looking more into the subject I have drastically changed my mind. Now before some of you get into flame mode I ask you to read and truly think about the things I am going to type here.

I ask first, a simple question what 2 times in our history have taxes on the top 1-3% of American been the highest?

The Answer, is during the 50's during the "Golden Years", and during the 90's economic boom when we were the strongest economy to ever exist on this planet.

Now when were the 2 times taxes were the lowest on the top 1-3% of Americans?

The answer, before the great depression, and in 2008 before the great recession.

So, we see that during our greatest economic times taxes were higher on the richest, and during our worst times they were lower on the richest.

Now you ask why is this? If the rich and corporations have more money they will spread it around. Well that is just totally not true. In fact, the lower taxes mean they have more money with which to speculate on the market with, which has caused both of our 2 worst economic crisis'.

See, if taxes our higher, that is when they will reinvest that money back into business and jobs, because it will not be worth the tax hit to take it out for profit.

I am not going into flame mode, but you need to do some more research. I suggest that you compare the rate of GDP growth before JFK's tax cuts took effect in the early 60s to how it fared after the marginal rates were slashed and then do the same before and after comparison for the Carter era of malaise and the Reagan boom era.

Another thing that your analysis fails to consider is the fact that the economies of our economic competitors in Europe and Asia were decimated by WWII. Our companies grew rich in the 1950s because they had very little competition. As the European and Asian companies recovered, many American companies had difficulty competing because they had become accustomed to selling junk.

Finally, something else that I suggest you research is the portion of the American population that has paid zero federal income taxes. That figure is currently around 47 percent and unless I am mistaken, that number has never been higher since the income tax came into existence. In other words, the top 50 percent of wage earners have never paid a bigger share of the cost of our federal government.

Maybe the fact that there is more dead weight for the producers in this country to pull has something to do with our economic troubles. Our elected representatives are currently spending about 40 percent more than they are collecting in taxes so that those who pay no taxes can live as if they are.

Exhibit A: Laffer curve.

However, that isnt to say that we shouldnt keep taxes low. The taxes may be too low right now, and an increase could actually help bring in more money to the government.

ukyfootball Wrote:However, that isnt to say that we shouldnt keep taxes low. The taxes may be too low right now, and an increase could actually help bring in more money to the government.

No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity and none ever will. Tax revenues increased following both the JFK tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts. Spending is the problem, just as it has been for decades. The difference is that the current Congress and administration has tripled the annual budget deficit in less than two years. Raising taxes will plunge us into another recession and take pressure off of politicians to cut spending.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:No country has ever taxed its way to prosperity and none ever will. Tax revenues increased following both the JFK tax cuts and the Reagan tax cuts. Spending is the problem, just as it has been for decades. The difference is that the current Congress and administration has tripled the annual budget deficit in less than two years. Raising taxes will plunge us into another recession and take pressure off of politicians to cut spending.

Im not saying we should tax a bundle more, but if you look at the Laffer curve you will understand what I'm saying. Arthur Laffer was an economist under the For administration and basically came up with a graph that explained how there's an equilibrium in taxation and government revenue. If we tax everybody 1%, then the government is going to have a small revenue. If we tax everybody 99%, then the government will have a small revenue because nobody will want to work.

Likewise, increasing taxes would only benefit depending on where we currently are on the Laffer curve.

ukyfootball Wrote:Im not saying we should tax a bundle more, but if you look at the Laffer curve you will understand what I'm saying. Arthur Laffer was an economist under the For administration and basically came up with a graph that how there's an equilibrium in taxation and government revenue. If we tax everybody 1%, then the government is going to have a small revenue. If we tax everybody 99%, then the government will have a small revenue because nobody will want to work.

Likewise, increasing taxes would only benefit depending on where we currently are on the Laffer curve.

I suggest that you compare the economy's performance under Ford's watch versus Reagan's terms. I am skeptical about any economist who advised Nixon, Ford, or Carter. Those were dark days for presidential economic advisers.

In practice, high tax rates leads to increased efforts to avoid the payment of taxes - it does not discourage most people from working. High marginal tax rates also result in "targeted tax cuts" aimed at rewarding political donors.

Capital flees high tax rates and this country has lost enough jobs to foreign competitors already. Our corporate tax rates are already among the highest in the world, yet liberals continuously demand that "greedy" corporations be punished with even higher taxes.

We should be lowering corporate taxes, not raising them. If Democrats want to raise taxes, maybe they should try collecting a pittance from the many deadbeats that they call constituents. There are too many folks riding the wagon and too few pulling it.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I suggest that you compare the economy's performance under Ford's watch versus Reagan's terms. I am skeptical about any economist who advised Nixon, Ford, or Carter. Those were dark days for presidential economic advisers.

In practice, high tax rates leads to increased efforts to avoid the payment of taxes - it does not discourage most people from working. High marginal tax rates also result in "targeted tax cuts" aimed at rewarding political donors.

Capital flees high tax rates and this country has lost enough jobs to foreign competitors already. Our corporate tax rates are already among the highest in the world, yet liberals continuously demand that "greedy" corporations be punished with even higher taxes.

We should be lowering corporate taxes, not raising them. If Democrats want to raise taxes, maybe they should try collecting a pittance from the many deadbeats that they call constituents. There are too many folks riding the wagon and too few pulling it.

As for the first part, almost every economist accepts the Laffer curve as truth. Yes, people may try to evade paying taxes, but they are more likely to just work less.

I do however agree with the second part of your post. But there is a happy medium when it comes to how much people are taxed and how much revenue the government brings in.

ukyfootball Wrote:As for the first part, almost every economist accepts the Laffer curve as truth. Yes, people may try to evade paying taxes, but they are more likely to just work less.

I do however agree with the second part of your post. But there is a happy medium when it comes to how much people are taxed and how much revenue the government brings in.

The people who pay most taxes in this country make money mostly on their investments, not by selling their labor. They do not stop investing when taxes rise, they invest elsewhere or take advantage of the loopholes that politicians carve out in the tax laws for large donors. So many people have already pulled money out of the economy and bought gold that Democrats hid a new tax on gold coins in Obamacare.

Which is the best for our economy? To increase taxes on the rich which means less money will be invested into our economy, and more money wasted by our government. Or to keep taxes lower and have more money invested in existing business or new jobs all the while having fewer people on government assistance.

I'm as conservative as anyone on here, but here is my stance:
Wipe out the deficit with 1/3 tax increases and 2/3 spending cuts.
Tax rates: Long-term capital gains - 0%, dividends - 20%, ordinary income - top rate 39.6%...and NO tax increases until AFTER the spending cuts are MADE and PASSED INTO LAW.

Beetle01 Wrote:Not just the rich but corporations also.

I used to be against this, but after looking more into the subject I have drastically changed my mind. Now before some of you get into flame mode I ask you to read and truly think about the things I am going to type here.

I ask first, a simple question what 2 times in our history have taxes on the top 1-3% of American been the highest?

The Answer, is during the 50's during the "Golden Years", and during the 90's economic boom when we were the strongest economy to ever exist on this planet.

Now when were the 2 times taxes were the lowest on the top 1-3% of Americans?

The answer, before the great depression, and in 2008 before the great recession.

So, we see that during our greatest economic times taxes were higher on the richest, and during our worst times they were lower on the richest.

Now you ask why is this? If the rich and corporations have more money they will spread it around. Well that is just totally not true. In fact, the lower taxes mean they have more money with which to speculate on the market with, which has caused both of our 2 worst economic crisis'.

See, if taxes our higher, that is when they will reinvest that money back into business and jobs, because it will not be worth the tax hit to take it out for profit.

So who is the wealthy? What is their actions going to be if you increase their taxes?

1. Professionals and soho company owners who currently file under the individual income tax would form C-corporation to shelter income, because the corporate tax rate would then be lower with fewer arbitrary limits on deductions for costs of earning income.

2. Investors who jumped into dividend-paying stocks when the tax rate fell to 15% would dump some of those shares in favor of tax-free municipal bonds if the dividend tax went up, and keep the rest in tax-free IRA or 401k accounts. Prices of dividend-paying stocks and funds could be depressed, reducing the yield of the capital gains tax.

3. If faced with a higher capital gains tax next year, investors would rush to realize taxable capital gains those not in IRAs and 401ks later this year. After 2010, investors would make greater efforts to avoid realizing gains in taxable accounts unless they had offsetting losses, and they would also make fewer investments in assets subject to the capital gains tax.

4. Many two-earner couples would become one-earner couples, early retirement would become more popular, physicians would play more golf, etc.

I honestly believe income taxes should remain the same for now.

However, I think all of the taxes Obama is instituting on the side (death, investment, and others) are a bunch of crock.

ukyfootball Wrote:I honestly believe income taxes should remain the same for now.
However, I think all of the taxes Obama is instituting on the side (death, investment, and others) are a bunch of crock.

I contend that they could be lower, however it will not be possible with the massive debt that this country now has. Everyone except the illegal immigrants will be buried in tax increases for every aspect of life soon.

Sorry to get off topic, but whats your infatuation with wrestlers?

Do away with ALL income tax and bring on a national sales tax

nky Wrote:Do away with ALL income tax and bring on a national sales tax

I dont think this would work as not every place are "tourist friendly." The reason why Florida has this is because so many tourists come in every year.

My father was a reluctant restaurateur, supporting his family with a modest diner in a small town. His heart wasn't really in the business side of things, but he was always careful about taxes. I recall how he made sure he put every penny of sales tax into a cigar box next to the cash register. He never made a lot of money, but I know just what he'd think about letting the "Bush tax cuts" expire next year and making "the rich" pay more. He'd think it's a crock. He'd understand that it jeopardizes the ability of small business owners to provide jobs and secure their families' future.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100...se-justice

Washington's current thinking is to retain the cuts for lower tax brackets but allow the cuts to expire for "high-end" incomes of more than $250,000 a year. We also could see the restoration of estate taxes - those ballyhooed "death taxes" - and the "marriage penalty," along with large jumps in the capital gains and dividend taxes that could affect more than half of all Americans.

These sudden increases could help kill a fragile economic recovery and create a "double-dip" recession. But it's being sold as something that just affects the idle rich who don't need the money anyway.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said recently it's "responsible to let the tax cuts expire that just go to 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans, the highest-earning Americans." But Geithner must know how deceptive his statement is. A tax on "highest-earning Americans" is not a tax on upper-crust snobs lounging on their estates while the rest of us struggle. It is actually a tax on job-providing entrepreneurs and businesses.

Here's the reality, as stated by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.: "Seventy-five percent of those people who pay that (highest) tax rate are small businesses who file as individuals, not corporations."

Small businesses are responsible for the vast majority of jobs created - a recent study by the respected Kauffman Foundation, in fact, concluded that firms five years old or younger account for all the net new jobs in America. All of them.

And while "only" 3 percent of small businesses will be affected by higher tax rates next year, that 3 percent represents half of the $1 trillion in small-business income subject to personal income tax, according to Congress' nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

It's not as though the tax system isn't "progressive" already. The top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes, according to the IRS, and the bottom 50 percent of earners pay just 3 percent of the taxes.

As my dad might say, How much more income redistribution do you want, for crying out loud?

Making "the rich" pay more may have a ring of justice to many Americans, especially in a struggling economy with high unemployment. But it would be a false justice.

If congressional leaders get their way and half the income from small business is taxed at a higher rate next year, that will translate into fewer jobs. Loans and other initiatives to help small businesses may ease some of the pain, but make no mistake: The tax trend is upward.

The most heated rhetoric, however, is on the federal estate tax, which will jump from 0 percent this year to 55 percent if you die after Dec. 31, 2010. Support for high estate taxes stems from a growing and pernicious notion that people shouldn't be allowed to pass wealth to their children - that it should revert to the government, which would then redistribute it more "fairly."

And this stems from a faulty, zero-sum assumption: If you're richer, I'm poorer, because there's only a fixed amount of wealth available. This fails to account for what is created by "rich" entrepreneurs, which makes the pie bigger for everyone.

It also perverts long-standing concepts of private property, along with equal opportunity. And it removes some of the reason to work hard, innovate, achieve and succeed, leaving something secure for your family.